This debate between the Sanders and Hillary supporters has essentially divided the Democratic party into two broad camps: those who want to gamble in 2016 and those who think it's better to consolidate. Here's my analysis of the two camps and how it affects our chances heading into 2016:
THE GAMBLERS
Sanders supporters predominantly fall in this camp. Sensing a leftward shifting in the Overton window in America the gamblers see an opening. They are pushing the Democratic party to go double or nothing with a candidate - Bernie Sanders - who promises revolutionary change. The deck is stacked against the 99% they argue. This is no time for politics as usual. They are mad as hell and they will not take it anymore. They are ready to storm the gated communities of the gilded class with pitchforks.
The Gamblers are not content with just a Democratic victory in 2016. They are looking for systematic change. They voice deep disappointment with the current Democratic President, Barack Obama, who they say let Wall Street off the hook and has betrayed them with TPP. They are wary... even hostile towards the current Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, who they say is too cozy with Wall Street and cannot be trusted to represent the interests of the 99%.
The Gamblers are ideologues at heart. They see themselves as Progressives first and Democrats second. The next best thing to sex to them is sending a chill down the spine of a greedy bankster. The Democratic Party is just a means - a vehicle - to help them achieve their ends. They believe they are fighting for a cause which transcends the traditional Democrat vs Republican partisan divide. They view 'corporate Democrats' as the enemy as much as the Republicans. Ideological purity is very important to them. They are not afraid of defeat. In fact some are willing to commit political martyrdom for their cause. Many of them voted for Ralph Nader's bound to fail Presidential bid in 2000 which paved the way for George W. Bush's catastrophic presidency.
Encouraged by Obama's historic victory in 2008 that many thought was impossible, the Gamblers swiftly dismiss anyone who discount or write off their candidate. They contend that if Americans can elect an African-American to the presidency, they are ready to elect a self-described Socialist. They point to Sanders large crowds, the grassroots movement behind him, and the crossover appeal he has with some Republicans and people generally apathetic to politics as signs that America is ripe for revolutionary change.
They want the Democratic Party to bet its entire political capital on this prospective revolution lead by Sanders. The Gamblers are so committed to their cause and their candidate that they are already rationalizing potential defeat as a some kind of victory. Here's a comment from a savvy Gambler:
...But as Occupy [Wall Street] and the election of Obama showed, the Overton Window is ready to swing leftward again. Bernie Sanders will do that even if he loses. He will do something that hasn't been done since the 1920s:
He will make socialism mainstream.
And if that doesn't sound like rolling the dice to you, the Gambler followed up with this:
3. If we lose... we're well positioned in 2018.
If there is a historical pattern that has existed in America since the dawn of our democracy, it's that the first midterm after a change of parties will almost always result in the incumbent president's party being soundly defeated. 2002 was a rare case where this didn't happen, and it didn't happen solely because of 9/11 and Bush's popularity at the time. Look back: 2010, 1994, 1990, 1982, 1978, 1970... these were all very good years for the party not in the White House.
Thus, if a Republican is elected over Bernie Sanders, 2018 will almost certainly be a Democratic wave year just in time for us to win very important governorships in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Florida, and other states with significant Republican gerrymanders in place. The governors of these states can veto Republican plans (or sign Democratic ones), allowing us to have a hand in drawing the congressional district maps after 2020. 2018 is the single most important election for the foreseeable future. It will also help us protect vulnerable red-state Democrats in states like Missouri, North Dakota, West Virginia, Montana, and Indiana, which would likely decide control of the Senate.
If we lose in 2016, we win in 2018, and therefore we win the House in 2022.
So the Gamblers want to put it all on the line in 2016 whether it means victory or defeat. But is 2016 the year to gamble? Before I answer this question, let's hear what the Consolidators have to say...
THE CONSOLIDATORS
The Consolidators are loyal Democrats. Hillary supporters predominantly fall in this camp. Consolidators vary in ideology from progressive to moderate. Consolidators are united in their opposition to Republicans. They understand that Democrats MUST WIN in 2016. Defeat is NOT apart of their equation. Consolidators know that a Republican winning the White House in 2016 would be nothing short of catastrophic for America. They are determined to STOP this from happening.
Consolidators are less interested in ideological purity or intra party fights. The next best thing to sex to them is making fun of Teabaggers. They are partisan Democrats at heart. They are willing to be pragmatic and accept some small compromises if it means ensuring a Democratic Victory. Consolidators know that in any given situation, a Democrat in power is immeasurably better than a Republican. Consolidators are ever mindful of the reality of American politics. Many of them like Bernie Sanders but they are wary of gambling with the party's chances in 2016. They feel a sense of safety with Hillary Clinton. They may not agree with her on every single thing but conclude that on aggregate she is the standard bearer for the Democratic Party. They feel strongly that she is our best hand going into the general.
Consolidators argue that it is better to consolidate and build on the gains made under Obama rather than roll the dice in hopes for revolutionary change. Consolidators are acutely aware of the limits of the Presidency with an intransigent GOP Congress. Though not perfect, they acknowledge that Obama has accomplished many progressive things during his tenure despite unprecedented Republican obstruction and they are determined to protect his legacy. Consolidators understand that Democrats retaining the White House in 2016 is essential to cementing Obama's legacy and setting up a bright future for Democrats and Progressives especially considering the fact that the next President will likely get the opportunity to make Supreme Court appointments who serve for life.
While a Gambler might be ready to torch a coporate Democrat for ideological impurity, Consolidators never take their eyes off the real 800 pound Gorilla in the room: The GOP-TP-DarkMoney coalition. Consolidators know that Republicans will have unlimited dark money at their disposal in 2016. They want the Democratic candidate to be fully armed to take on this axis of evil. Consolidators understand that the Democratic party is a big tent and our strength is in our unity. They know that a united Democratic coalition is unbeatable as evidenced by Obama's two improbable and historic victories in 08 and 12.
Consolidators believe that Hillary is the best candidate who can hold the Obama coalition and possibly broaden the Democratic voter spectrum by bringing some working class whites to the fold who never warmed to Obama. Their mantra going into 2016 is: Hillary might not be the sexiest of candidates (her Iraq War vote, cautiousness, ties to Wall Street) but she will get the job done.
MY THOUGHTS
The Gamblers are on to something. Sanders has a powerful message which is resonating with a lot of people. As a Democrat I agree with everything Bernie represents. I love the forcefulness and passion with which he talk about the issues. I sometimes visit right wing sites to gauge what the opposition is thinking and I'd see some surprising support for Bernie on these sites. I think there is an undercurrent of populism in America that Bernie has tapped into.
However, with all this excitement I still have serious doubts about Bernie's candidacy. I feel like we'd be taking a huge gamble if we nominate him as our candidate. I do believe he can win but there are so many unknowns and variables with his candidacy that give me pause. For one I am concerned with his unilateral decision to restrict himself in fundraising to make a point about not taking corporate money. While this is admirable, it would cost us dearly as we face off with an opponent with seeming unlimited money on their side. It would be tantamount to going into a nuclear war with conventional weapons to make a point that nuclear weapons are bad. Also I feel like we may be overestimating just how far left the Overton window has shifted in America. I am really not prepared to live with the consequences of a Republican in the White House if we are wrong.
Overall this is my biggest fear with Bernie's candidacy. It very much feels like a gamble and there is a real possibility of defeat which some of the supporters are already rationalizing in their equation. This is UNACCEPTABLE to me. Democrats CANNOT go into 2016 thinking losing the election would be somehow OK. Democrats MUST WIN in 2016! I repeat, WE MUST WIN!! I don't think there was ever a presidential election with more at stake than 2016.
Gambling isn't always a bad thing in politics. The Democrats gambled big in 2008 and won handsomely with Obama. Likewise the Republicans gambled with Reagan in 1980 and also won. However it is easier and it makes more sense for a party to gamble when they are out of office and have nothing to lose. However when you have the record of a two term President to defend, it's a different equation. This is when you need to leave the slot machine, cash in your earnings, and bank it.
The stakes are too high in 2016 to gamble. I shudder in horror to think what the Republicans would do if they get the keys o the White House in 2016: massive Wall Street deregulation, Repeal of ObamaCare that would throw millions of newly insured Americans back into the cold, tax cuts for the superich, austerity for the middle class and the poor, ramp up of the already bloated defense budget, imminent war with Iran, new laws allowing discrimination against gays and minorities just to name a few...
This is why I support Hillary. She is the type of candidate who will consolidate what we gained under Obama and build on that foundation to ensure a more perfect union. She is not promising a revolution, she is not promising to re-invent the wheel. She has outlined real pragmatic reforms which are doable under the current political climate in Washington. At the end of the day this is what the Democrats need in 2016: someone who will WIN and get the job done.
The historic nature of Hillary's candidacy is not lost on me. She is the only candidate with any real chance of winning a major party nomination right now who is not a male caucasion. Carly Fiorina and Ben Carson stands no chance on the Republican side. Having produced America's first African-American President, it is logical that the Democratic party would make history again by nominating and electing our first woman President. I know this sounds like simple identity politics but it does matter for millions of women out there just as it mattered for millions of black Americans like me that the Democrats nominated Obama. There is no woman in America more qualified to be President than Hillary. I think many are discounting this fact when discussing Hillary's candidacy. Women will be a deciding factor in this election. They are already making a statement by contributing in record numbers to Hillary's campaign.
All things considered Hillary is our strongest hand heading into 2016. While Sanders is compelling, 2016 is NOT the year to gamble. There is too much at stake. We should cash our earnings under Obama and bank it with Hillary. It would be reckless to roll the dice considering the damage a Republican President could inflict. Democrats MUST WIN in 2016. Period.
Comments are closed on this story.